5 ms·

That is something that I also, as an American of mostly English/French/German descent, have wondered about. It was, quite frankly, a revelation to me when I fi

by douche 12y ago

That is something that I also, as an American of mostly English/French/German descent, have wondered about. It was, quite frankly, a revelation to me when I first encountered people who were lactose intolerant in college. It seems even more unlikely, given that China has had so much interaction with the nomad peoples from Mongolia, Manchuria, and central Asia, who lived mostly off of their herds and milk-products.

xiaq 12y ago
> It seems even more unlikely, given that China has had so much interaction with the nomad peoples from Mongolia, Manchuria, and central Asia, who lived mostly off of their herds and milk-products. Dairy products never really made it into Chinese diet. The next question to ask is why diary products didn't make it into Chinese diet despite the interactions with the nomad peoples :)
- douche 12y ago
  That is a very interesting question. The most obvious answer is that most of south-central China is just more suited to rice production than cattle/sheep/goats. I still find it interesting, since many of the more successful Chinese ruling dynasties have central/north asian roots (Tang, Yuan, Qing). Considering that Genghis Khan is probably an ancestor to most of the eastern half of eurasia, once might expect those lactose-tolerant genes to be more prevalent.
  - xiaq 12y ago
    > Considering that Genghis Khan is probably an ancestor to most of the eastern half of eurasia, This is simply wrong. Maybe some 16 million. But that has also been more of a hypothesis. See http://clubtroppo.com.au/2012/10/15/why-genghis-khan-wont-have-had-16-million-descendants/ http://clubtroppo.com.au/2012/10/15/why-genghis-khan-wont-ha... for one of the refutations for instance.
    - jobposter1234 12y ago
      Just to make sure the HN record is balanced, I point out for future readers that Wikipedia currently records that some research suggests he is a critical ancestor to approximately 0.5% of the world's population. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan#DNA_evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan#DNA_e...) I do this not to participate in the argument but to point uninvolved readers to objective sources.
darkhorn 12y ago
For those who may think that Mongolians and Chinese are related; Chinese and Altaic people are not related. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages By Altaic I mean Central Asians like Mongolians and Turks/Turkic.
- nsns 12y ago
  That depends on what you mean by "related". The relations between languages are surely no indication of other forms of relationship (cultural, geographical, historical). When equating "people" with the language they speak, something that was very popular in the 18th & 19th centuries[0], it is important to remember that the ancestors of many people you know today probably spoke a different language 200 years ago. [0] For a good historical summary, see http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520244559 http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520244559
Jun8 12y ago
The interactionw as not a positive one, i.e. "Northern peoples" were considered barbaric in Chinese culture and their customs/couisines would by extension be shunned, see e.g. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/ft/2011/05/kicking_up_a_stink.html http://www.slate.com/articles/life/ft/2011/05/kicking_up_a_s...
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  That's not what happened. The history of nomadic peoples in China is a continuing series of episodes of nomads conquering, then settling down and becoming a part of the local population. Just as happened with the Vikings in Europe.

by douche 12y ago

xiaq 12y ago

> It seems even more unlikely, given that China has had so much interaction with the nomad peoples from Mongolia, Manchuria, and central Asia, who lived mostly off of their herds and milk-products. Dairy products never really made it into Chinese diet. The next question to ask is why diary products didn't make it into Chinese diet despite the interactions with the nomad peoples :)

douche 12y ago
That is a very interesting question. The most obvious answer is that most of south-central China is just more suited to rice production than cattle/sheep/goats. I still find it interesting, since many of the more successful Chinese ruling dynasties have central/north asian roots (Tang, Yuan, Qing). Considering that Genghis Khan is probably an ancestor to most of the eastern half of eurasia, once might expect those lactose-tolerant genes to be more prevalent.
- xiaq 12y ago
  > Considering that Genghis Khan is probably an ancestor to most of the eastern half of eurasia, This is simply wrong. Maybe some 16 million. But that has also been more of a hypothesis. See http://clubtroppo.com.au/2012/10/15/why-genghis-khan-wont-have-had-16-million-descendants/ http://clubtroppo.com.au/2012/10/15/why-genghis-khan-wont-ha... for one of the refutations for instance.
  - jobposter1234 12y ago
    Just to make sure the HN record is balanced, I point out for future readers that Wikipedia currently records that some research suggests he is a critical ancestor to approximately 0.5% of the world's population. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan#DNA_evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan#DNA_e...) I do this not to participate in the argument but to point uninvolved readers to objective sources.

darkhorn 12y ago

For those who may think that Mongolians and Chinese are related; Chinese and Altaic people are not related. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages By Altaic I mean Central Asians like Mongolians and Turks/Turkic.

nsns 12y ago
That depends on what you mean by "related". The relations between languages are surely no indication of other forms of relationship (cultural, geographical, historical). When equating "people" with the language they speak, something that was very popular in the 18th & 19th centuries[0], it is important to remember that the ancestors of many people you know today probably spoke a different language 200 years ago. [0] For a good historical summary, see http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520244559 http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520244559

Jun8 12y ago

The interactionw as not a positive one, i.e. "Northern peoples" were considered barbaric in Chinese culture and their customs/couisines would by extension be shunned, see e.g. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/ft/2011/05/kicking_up_a_stink.html http://www.slate.com/articles/life/ft/2011/05/kicking_up_a_s...

InclinedPlane 12y ago
That's not what happened. The history of nomadic peoples in China is a continuing series of episodes of nomads conquering, then settling down and becoming a part of the local population. Just as happened with the Vikings in Europe.